Drones, targeted killings and the rhetoric of a killable enemy

(1)

Master’s Thesis 2018 30 ECTS Faculty of Landscape and Society

Department of International Environment and Development Studies

Bruno Oliveira Martins (PhD) Professor Stig Jarle Hansen

Drones, Targeted Killings and the Rhetoric of a Killable Enemy

Erskine Yengoude Apiiyah

Master of Science in International Relations Faculty of Landscape and Society

(2)

| P a g e

DRONES, TARGETED KILLINGS AND THE RHETORIC OF A KILLABLE ENEMY

A Reaper MQ-9 Remotely Piloted Air System (RPAS) taxis along the runway at Kandahar Air field, Afghanistan

Photo Credit: Corporal Steve Follows RAF, Crown Copyright/MOD 2011]

(3)

i | P a g e

The Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is the international gateway for the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU). Established in 1986, Noragric’s contribution to international development lies in the interface between research, education (Bachelor, Master and PhD programmes) and assignments.

The Noragric Master’s theses are the final theses submitted by students in order to fulfil the requirements under the Noragric Master’s programmes ‘International Environmental Studies’,

‘International Development Studies’ and ‘International Relations’.

The findings in this thesis do not necessarily reflect the views of Noragric. Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the author and on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation contact Noragric.

Noragric

Department of International Environment and Development Studies The Faculty of Landscape and Society

P.O. Box 5003 N-1432 Ås Norway

Tel.: +47 67 23 00 00 Internet:

https://www.nmbu.no/fakultet/landsam/institutt/noragric

(4)

ii | P a g e

Declaration

I, Erskine Yengoude Apiiyah, declare that this thesis is a result of my research investigations and findings. Sources of information other than my own have been acknowledged and a reference list has been appended. This work has not been previously submitted to any other university for award of any type of academic degree.

Signature...

Date...

(5)

iii | P a g e

Acknowledgements

My appreciation goes to the Norwegian University of Life Sciences for admitting me into the Master programme in International Relations and providing me with the necessary tools, assistance and congenial atmosphere to make my studies successful. I am thankful to my course coordinator Ingunn Bohmann who always went an extra mile to ensure that I had a smooth progression. I cannot forget the several emails I bombarded you with and the timely manner my concerns were always addressed. The same goes to the entire staff of NORAGRIC and the personnel at the Student’s Information Centre (SiT).

Special thanks go to my supervisor Bruno Oliveira Martins (PhD) of Peace Research Institute of Oslo (PRIO). Your rich interest and expertise in my area of research made every step of this work interesting. I have indeed learnt from you and have been motivated by your passion to teach and mentor. The same goes to co-supervisor Professor Stig Jarle Hansen of NMBU. Your guidance and direction to the right sources was key in producing this excellent work. Especially, introducing me to PRIO was a turn-around to this master thesis.

I am thankful to my friend Richmond Baah for allowing me to experiment on him mercilessly- trying out new ideas with him and making time out of his busy schedule at UNIDO-Vienna to review my work. I believe I have been successful in transforming you from an Auditor to an expert of armed drones and targeted killings. To my brother Chester Apiiyah of GN Logistics-Ghana, I am grateful for your review though I submitted my work to you at a very short notice.

Finally, I thank my wife Ernestina Anaba for believing in me and encouraging me to live my dreams. And to my son Erwin Yenpang Apiiyah, who has no idea what I write about but nevertheless will be proud to say that he has a father who is an emerging scholar. To my late parents Robert Apiiyah and Patience Asobayire, I know you will always be proud of me. May God make it easy for you wherever you are.

(6)

iv | P a g e

Abstract

In the context of the international fight against terrorism, nations continue to target and kill people suspected of being terrorists or associated with terrorist networks. This war on terror has largely been driven by remotely piloted drones which is now a weapon of choice for western democracies.

Although the legitimacy of targeted killing missions continues to be debated, these nations continue to make public justifications for eliminating suspected terrorists. The aim of this thesis was therefore to understand how western democracies framed their adversaries as targetable and killable as part of the global war on terror. Using the enemy image theory and US, Israel and UK as case studies, I explored the political discourse of these countries to understand how their political actors have justified suspected terrorists as killable targets. At the end of the study, my findings revealed that politicians use discursive devices that identify and polarize individuals and groups. The means of polarization involved the use of words that create a general divide between the self and the ‘Other’. Words that were degrading were peculiar to the ‘enemy’ whiles the complimentary imagery addressed the self or the state. Secondly, the political actors advanced the rhetoric to the projection of a threat that is existential and imminent in nature. The threat was framed in extra-ordinary terms out of normal politics such that, the threat situation required exceptional measures that included the killing of suspected terrorists. Finally, political actors emphasized the need and justifiable grounds for which the ‘enemy’ must be targeted and killed.

This justification to kill the enemy was found to be normalized through the construction of the enemy in the political discourse.

Keywords: Drones, Targeted Killing, Enemy and Western Democracies.

(7)

v | P a g e

1.0 Chapter One: Introduction

In the records of human history, individuals and certain groups in political societies have once eliminated their leaders whom they deemed as oppressors and dictators to restore equity in governance while others have also killed leaders of their adversaries to change the outcomes of war. Even though the practice of targeted killings (TKs) have existed early in history, its prevalence has varied in time as well as its political, legal and moral analysis. For instance, in the history of ancient Greece, citizens were honoured for the successful elimination of tyrants for the maintenance of democracy in the city-state (Teegarden, 2014). Early in the 15^th Century, even though acts of killing or assassinating state leaders were deemed legitimate in Europe (Senn &

Jodok, 2017), changing rules de-legitimized this practice pushing state actors who engaged in them to do so in secret (Alston, 2011).

Despite the long practice of TKs, eliminating another person in another country was challenging because it required the deployment of personnel physically on the ground in challenging terrains, the use of proxies in the foreign country or the use of long-range missiles to attack. In modern times, the difficulty in practicing TK is no more with the advent of drones making the practice easier and cheaper culminating in an exponential increase in the number of TK operations (Horowitz & Fuhrmann, 2015). In practical terms, drones and targeted killings are two separate phenomena. As indicated earlier, TKs have existed early in history whiles drones are a recent development. The reason why the two are studied together is because drones have resulted in the killing of more people.

Also, while states were previously operating under cover in their TK missions, current trends now show how states engage in open justification of the method and usually cite it as part of national security strategy (McDonald, 2016). Indeed, the technological advancement in the use of drones represents a technological revolution for TKs. Due to the ability of the drone, they have become a weapon of choice especially for western democracies because these nations now want to go to war with less risk to personnel and equipment (Senn & Troy, 2017).

Among western democracies, the US is the leading country in the use of military drones for TKs (Cole, 2018; Walker , 2017). Meanwhile, airstrikes by US drones have continued in Syria and Iraq as part of the fight against ISIS and Al-Qaeda (Cole, 2018). Secondly, Israel has been adjudged as the pacesetters in the use of armed drones (Byman , 2011) and the only nation that has recorded

(11)

2 | P a g e

the highest number of assassination operations among western nations since World War 2 (Bergman , 2018). In Europe, UK is the only country that has deployed armed drones as part of its operation against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. That notwithstanding, the UK government have still indicated continued strikes in Syria and Iraq until ISIS is completely defeated (Cole , 2018).

There are different kinds of weapons possessed by states all over the world for lethal attacks. This can range from rifles to tanks, inter-continental ballistic missiles (IBMs), submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), attack helicopters such as the AH-64 Apache helicopter among others.

However, armed drones have not only emerged as a weapon of choice for those who possess the technology, but also have a growing capacity to be deployed in unlimited contexts. Modern armies are consistently deploying armed drones in the context of conventional warfare and outside the battlefield (Fisk & Ramos, 2016). Armed drones account for over 95 percent of TKs outside the battlefield (Himes , 2015).

As much as this phenomenon undergoes transformation, debates about the issue in academia have varied in its ethical, legal and political dimensions. Central to the debate in academia is the justification for TKs. Arguments in literature about the justifications for TKs generally take a legal, ethical and philosophical perspective. Scholars who argue along these three themes can further be categorized under three axes: research that disputes TK as a method of counter-terrorism, those that accept it and finally academics who think that existing legal conventions and statutes need to be updated to reflect contemporary threats to the security of nations (Finkelstein, Ohlin, & Altman, 2012). There are two other branches of the debate on the subject area which also focuses broadly on the use of drones as a preferred method in TKs and finally, the impact of TKs.

To contribute to this academic debate, this thesis looks at the issue from another perspective by seeking to understand how political actors frame their adversaries as killable targets or as in the words of Gregory, “their lives losable” (Gregory , 2017, p. 212). To achieve this, I focus on the international counter-terrorism rhetoric of the US, Israel and the UK

1.1 Problem Statement

Armed Drones are a subject of debate across the globe as nations continue to acquire drones of different kinds and for varying purposes. Key among the widespread use and development of the technology is that a significant number of countries who “possess drones are well-established democracies such as US, Israel, France and the UK” (Senn & Troy, 2017; Martins , 2015). The

(12)

3 | P a g e

US and Israel are the largest manufacturers of armed drones in the world. In this category, the US is the leading country in the use of military drones for TKs whiles Israel is judged as the world’s largest drone exporter (Cole, 2018; Walker , 2017; Davis, et al., 2014). Within this framework, the US has continued to engage in drones strikes in Syria and Iraq as part of the fight against ISIS and Al-Qaeda (Cole, 2018). In drone warfare, Israel has been adjudged as the leading nation in the use of armed drones (Byman , 2011) and the first nation to acknowledge the elimination of a suspected terrorist in November 2000 (Senn & Troy, 2017). Israel has also recorded the highest number of assassination operations among western nations since World War 2 (Bergman , 2018).

The MQ-9 Reaper drone produced by General Atomics is America’s major combat drone. The closest competitor to the MQ-9 Reaper is Israel’s IAI Heron drone. Recently, Chinese-made armed drones have made it to the drone market with supply to countries in the middle east, Africa and countries in Asia. Pakistan, Nigeria and Iraq used the Chinese CH-3 and CH-4 drones in 2015 whiles the CH-5 became China’s newest version in 2016 (Goh & Doyle, 2018). In Europe, though some countries are yet to acquire the technology and others still debating the acquisition of it, countries involved in the drone technology are UK, Germany, France and Italy (Di Salvo, 2017;

Dworkin, 2015). Currently, UK is the only country that has deployed armed drones as part of its operation against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. It is estimated that about 58 airstrikes have been conducted by British drones in Syria in 2018. And like the US, the UK government have indicated continued strikes in Syria and Iraq until ISIS is completely defeated (Cole , 2018).

In the past, secrecy characterized TK operations but lately, nations now engage in open justification of this method of counter-terrorism. The practice has become common-place such that the US president for instance may decide which ‘enemies’ of the state may die based on a “kill list” (Friedman, 2012). Former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) once referred to drones as “the only game in town” (Singer P. W., 2009, p. 33). Evidently, drones now form part of regular counter-terrorism measures of western democracies, which indeed is to eliminate, rather than capture, suspected terrorists.

Much as drones have changed contemporary methods of fighting, debates on the subject have traversed along two approaches. First, research has focused on the justification of the method as a counter-terrorism tactic from the legal and ethical perspective. Research along these approaches can be categorized into research that disputes TK as a method of counter-terrorism, those that

(13)

4 | P a g e

accept it and finally academics who think that existing legal conventions and statutes need to be updated to reflect contemporary threats to the security of nations (Finkelstein et al, 2012)

Critical in the debate of TKs is the identification of targets for a “kill list”. Drones permit their operators to identify specific targets to be able to direct “warheads on foreheads” (Gregory , 2017, p. 213). Selecting targets for elimination is usually preceded by long periods of surveillance including the trailing of several people through their social networks. These individuals being followed are sometimes not people already known, but the criterion is to identify behaviour patterns that are suspicious and indeed generic in nature (Chamayou, 2015). The pattern of life identified are usually linked to that of terrorists which may not have been confirmed by intelligence (Wilcox, 2017).This method of identifying a killable target in principle is primarily based on a pre- determined profile awaiting an appropriate match.

The convergence in the arguments of Gregory, Chamayou and Wilcox unveils the research gap that is addressed by this thesis. This study takes the argument further by looking into how targets are framed by the political actors for the acceptable logic of eliminating the ‘enemy’. Whiles previous studies provided limited knowledge into how targets are framed by politicians to make their adversaries targetable and killable, this thesis will present an advanced scholarly argument for the understanding of this subject as well to activate a sustained academic debate on the topic.

1.2 Research Aim and Research Question

In the context of the international fight against terrorism, the US, Israel and UK continue to target and kill people suspected of being terrorists or associated with terrorist networks. This war on terror has largely been driven by using remotely piloted drones. Although the legitimacy of TK missions continues to be debated, these nations continue to make public justifications for eliminating suspected terrorists. The aim of this thesis is therefore to understand how the political actors of US, Israel and UK frame the ‘enemy’ in order to make him targetable and killable. For achieving the aim of this study, the central research question is: In the context of the International fight against terrorism, how do western democracies frame the enemy as targetable and killable?

1.3 Definition of Key Terms

1.3.1 Drone

In the Military dictionary of the United States (US) Army, “a drone is a land, sea or air vehicle that is remotely or automatically controlled”. (Joint Publication 1-02, p. 171). By this definition, a drone is not necessarily an aerial object. Examples of a drone can include submarine drones,

(14)

5 | P a g e

marine drones, and terrestrial drones provided there is no human being controlling the machine.

Drones can be remotely piloted by humans or controlled independently by artificial intelligence (robots). However, existing technology for the military do not include autonomous lethal robots, though technology is advancing towards that domain for the future (Chamayou, 2015). In modern warfare, drones are commonly referred to as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or in other domains Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs). The appropriate term depends on whether the drone is mounted with weapon or not. Against this backdrop, this thesis focuses on TKs executed by armed aerial vehicles (also known as hunter-killer drones).

1.3.2 Targeted Killing

The Academic discourse on target killings has generated several terminologies such as “summary execution, extra judicial killing, named killing, targeted elimination, targeted killing, or state sponsored killing” for this subject (Senn & Troy, 2017, p. 185). The discourse has been closely related to assassination and has therefore caused the use of TK and assassination interchangeably by many scholars. That notwithstanding, this study does not attempt to submit arguments to distinguish between the meanings associated with the various labels associated with TK. On this basis, I follow the definition of TK as suggested by Melzer in his book “TK and International Law”. He defines TK as “the use of lethal force attributable to a subject of international law with the intent, premeditation and deliberation to kill individually selected persons who are not in the physical custody of those targeting them” (Melzer, 2008, p. 5).

1.3.3 Western Democracies

Democracy is a concept with several possible meanings depending on what one emphasizes to define it. The commonly accepted definition of democracy pays attention to the institutions of democratic governance as well as its procedures. In the words of Robert Dahl, democracy is associated with the “institutions and processes of representative governance” (Dahl cited in Dalton , Shin, & Jou, 2007, p. 143). In other words, if governments are formed through free and fair elections, then democracy is said to prevail. In other contexts, democracy is defined in terms of outcomes such as freedom and liberty. These outcomes are achievable through the functioning of democratic institutions (ibid). Accordingly, western countries that exhibit these tenets of democratic governance are deemed as western democracies.

(15)

6 | P a g e

1.3.4 The ‘Enemy’

The Latin word inimicus, literally meaning not-friend is the root word of the word enemy. The Cambridge online dictionary defines enemy as “a person who hates or opposes another person and tries to harm them or stop them from doing something”. In the US, the Federal Law defines enemy as “the government of any nation with which the US is at War” (Holt, 1989). In the field of Political-Psychology, it is argued that the idea of opposing force, with its accompanying damaging effects are sometimes nuanced and found to be associated with the relationships that persons have with others in a conflict. It acknowledges the role of perception and therefore suggests that “enemy is a person or group of persons perceived to represent a threat to or to be hostile towards the perceiver” (Silverstein & Flamenbaum, 1989, p. 53).

The word enemy has distinctly registered varying meanings across fields. During the era of the cold war, it was observed that the Soviet Union was deemed as the enemy of the US and its allies (Leffler, 1994) not only because they posed as a physical threat to the US per se but also because they represented a different ideology which put them in a comparative position as a superpower.

However, in contemporary times, enemy has been understood in more abstract terms by many people since they have not experienced war of any kind (Holt, 1989). Based on the current widened definition of the term, enemy may include persons or groups with opposing ideologies, religion or values that puts them in a competitive position for global influence (Zur, 1991).

1.4 Delimitations

Though a lot of studies in this area have generally focused on the political, moral, legal and general impact of targeted killings using drones, this study adopts a different focus by looking into how western democracies have framed their adversaries as targetable and killable. To achieve this and using three countries as case studies, I focus on the political rhetoric of US, Israel and UK in the context of the international fight against terrorism.

1.5 Outline of Study

Following this introduction, Chapter two (2) is next which will deal with the Literature Review.

Chapter three (3) focuses on the research methodology and research design. Chapter four (4) will highlight on the theoretical framework of this study. Chapter five (5) discusses Western democracies and TKs. In Chapter (6), I conduct an analysis of my data and follow up with a discussion. Finally, I conclude in chapter seven (7).

(16)

7 | P a g e

2.0 Chapter: Two Literature Review

In the past decade and a half, the international fight against terrorism has gone through some transformation due to the increasing deployment of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and especially for their deployment in TK missions. The current revolution of TKs using drones has sparked enormous research among academics resulting in an extensive literature on the subject.

Central to the debate in academia is the justification for TKs. Arguments in literature about the justifications for TKs generally take a legal, ethical and philosophical perspective. Scholars who argue along these three themes can further be categorized under three axes: research that disputes TK as a method of counter-terrorism, those that accept it and finally academics who think that existing legal conventions and statutes need to be updated to reflect contemporary threats to the security of nations (Finkelstein, Ohlin, & Altman, 2012). There are two other branches of the debate on the subject area which also focuses broadly on the use of drones as a preferred method in TKs and finally, the impact of TKs.

2.1 The legal Debate

The first branch which is the largest in the research area deliberates on the legitimacy of TKs by measuring the strategy of TK against legal and moral principles to find out whether there is the need for an overhaul in strategy and law to meet the changing faces of armed conflict. The key question which drives this branch of research is whether International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which opposes the regime of preventive force (lethal) targeted against individuals or the more liberal and allowing nature of armed conflict is also the regulator of state-sponsored TK (Blum &

Heymann, 2010; Falk, 2014; Otto, 2012).

Scholars in the area of these two paradigms have come to agree that research on TKs finds itself in an awkward position between these two paradims by recommending the consolidation of their elements (Farer & Bernard, 2016), the enhancement of their distinctiveness (Finkelstein, Ohlin, &

Altman , 2012) or the discontinuity of the paradigms with the aim of exploring other possible frameworks for the adjudication of whether TK is legally permissible (Hakimi, 2012).

Reflecting on the limits of international law and based on the premise of Whitley Kaufman, who argues that it is permissible in the history of the just war tradition to employ the so called preventive force (2005), Michael Doyle (2008) points out the circumstances under which preventive force will be legitimate under the United Nations Charter. Brunstetter and Braun (2011) however suggest the need for a hybrid framework that operates between the just war tradition and law enforcement

(17)

8 | P a g e

since fighting terrorists cannot be adequately regulated by the current legal paradigm or the war convention.

Similarly, some academics have also argued on whether the principle of self defense is an acceptable grounds for targeting and killing people (Corn , 2012; Finkelstein, Ohlin, & Altman , 2012). They have therefore researched into the legal admissibility of using lethal force against nations who do not have the capacity or willingness to disallow non-state actors to establish a firm base on their soil for the launching of lethal attacks on other nations (Dawood, 2013; Deeks, 2013).

Arkin (2009) and Bradley Strawser (2010) take a different position arguing that the key issue is not about the use of drones per se, but the control and management of drones within the principles of the laws of war, namely the principle of distinction and proportionality, just cause and distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. Ohlin et al (2012) are however of the view that the principle of distinction as framed in international law offers terrorists an advantage.

Due to the weakness in the term, terrorists deliberately do not identify themselves as combatants to be protected in the same manner that civilians will be treated.

A step further in this area is where scholars take the argument to the analysis of the legal stance as well as the terminology that states and non-state actors use in legitimizing TKs. Gregory for instance critically analyzes the terms combatants and non-combatants in international law and shows us how international law (the law supposed to regulate armed conflict and prevent violence against vulnerable groups) has been used to justify the elimination of people and making civilians more vulnerable (Gregory , 2017; Gregory , 2015).

The principle of jus in bello on the other hand discusses the question of unfairness and symmetry in operations related to TKs. On the question of unfairness, research has debated on the means to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants and have made immense contributions in this regard. These recommendations include finding a legitimate target using individual behaviour (Guiora , 2012), organizational connection, (Gross , 2010) or a fusion of both (Finkelstein, Ohlin,

& Altman , 2012)

In the context of armed conflict where the US, Israel and UK have cited the threat of terrorism as the basis for killing suspected terrorists, there has also been a growing debate on the relevance of the underlying principles of Just War theory (jus ad bellum and just in bello) in assymetrical conflicts involving states and terrorist groups, or whether these principles can be supported by a

(18)

9 | P a g e

jus ad vim (Walzer, 2011). The principle of jus ad vim applies to the context of using force that is short of war such as TK (Frowe, 2016). Further and with a focus on jus ad bellum, some academics have argued that since it has become morally permissible for states to apply military force on a large scale, the same principles should be applicable to TK missions (Statman , 2012).

This takes the debate to the doctrine of proportionality in the use of force. Here, scholars in this debate have either supported (Lewis , 2013) or contested (Megan & Brunstetter, 2013) the claim that using drones in TK missions reduce civilian casualties. Whereas some are of the view that the use of drones to kill is a more “humane” approach to killing, others also argue on the moral implications that is inherent in the method. Lewis is one of the scholars who thinks that drones are more humane in TKs (2013).

2.2 The Proliferation of Drone Technology

Regarding research on the use of drones as a preferred tool in TK, the literature includes studies using statistical data to document the state of prevalence of the phenomenon (Eisner, 2011;

Mcgovern, 2010). Studies in this area have also covered the history of TKs as a strategy and enquired into why states prefer to use this type of violence (Teegarden, 2014; Gazi & Brym, 2011).

Within this sphere, research has delved into the patterns and motivations for the spread and use of drone technology as a tool in modern warfare (Gilli & Gilli, 2016). At the same time, some scholars are of the view that drones lower the cost of war which has made war so probable (Tucker, 2014) which has consequences for the international system (Boyle , 2015), Gilli & Gilli, disagree with this position contending that producing advance weapon systems require heavy infrastructure and expertise that cannot be easily acquired from other fields (2016). By citing countries like the US, France and UK, they maintain that these countries have found it challenging adopting and adapting the drone technology. Therefore, there seems to be an overly exaggerated idea about the spread of drone technology.

In a comparable context Michael Fuhrmann and Matthew Horowitz (2015) focus on the stimulating factors behind the adoption and spread of drone technology. They establish the fact that countries that are experiencing threats to their national security are more likely to acquire drones. Though this may not be the only defining criteria or reason to acquire drones, the type of political system (democracies or autocracies) was found to be an underlying factor in pre-disposing a country to acquire the technology. Finally, to predict accurately whether a country was likely to

(19)

10 | P a g e

acquire drones, these drivers largely rested on the country’s general advancement in technology (ibid).

In a fourth-coming article by Martins and Küsters, the authors have also highlighted on the expansion of drone research and development in Europe which has attracted huge funding from the EU. Their research indicates that there are over 200 projects aimed at drone research and development in Europe. Out of this number, more than 50% of the project is towards dual purpose drones (military and civilian) whiles the fraction for military research and development is constituted by 80 projects (2018). This trend indicates that the drone business is no more the preserve of countries like the US but now a technology with global demand and use.

2.3 The Effectiveness of TKs

Academics generally disagree on the effectivesness of TK as a method of counter-terrorism. In

‘The trouble with Targeted Killing’, scholars like Carvin seek to answer the question of whether TK is an effective counter-terrorism measure. The author argues that even though current research provides a good platform for studying TKs, the findings are not enough grounds to conclusively judge that TK is or is not an effective counter-terrorism tactic (2016). In another context of a similar study, academics have claimed that the elimination of suspected terrorist targets is an effective strategy because it diminishes the enemy’s overall cohesion and fighting capabilities (Johnston, 2012).

Also, Wilner in his studies found that eliminating key members of terrorist groups constrain the operational capabilities of militant groups thereby limiting them from carrying out coordinated attacks effectively as a group (2010). Even though Knopf (2012) agree with Wilner on the effectiveness of TK on the basis that it makes it inhherently dangerous for terrorist to carry out attacks, this argument has been rejected by some academics who think that the elimination of state actors and non-state actors (Piazza & Horgan, 2016) has no negative consequences or implications for the enemy’s morale or willingness to fight (Abrahams & Mierau, 2015; Sarbahi & Johnston, 2016).

Tominaga studied the effects of decapitation operations beyond targeted groups. He also concluded that eliminating militant leaders did not generally reduce attacks from militant groups. However, operations of other non-targeted groups also decreased over the period which is an indirect effect of the targeted operations (2018). Cronin on the other hand thinks that results to indicate whether

(20)

11 | P a g e

TK is an effective method may be mixed. However, in judging the effectiveness of the method in the Israeli case, she agrees that targeted strikes may have prevented attacks against Israel thereby saving a lot of civilian lives domestically (2009). In a similar research, Mannes contends that though it may be difficult to make a strong case for the effectiveness of decapitation strikes, reference can be made to the general drop in the frequency of violence as an indication of a successful strategy (2008). Aside studies on the effectiveness of TKs, other research also focused on the circumstances that explain why some governments eliminate leaders of social movements (Bob & Nepstad, 2007)

Between 1945 to 2004, Jordan studied 298 leadership decapitation strikes in different parts of the globe. His findings were that targeting and killing leaders of terrorist groups can be effective in some contexts but can also produce undesired results in other contexts (Jordan, 2009). Jordan argues that factors including the size, age and type of the terrorist group are critical in judging whether killing of their leaders will be bring the activities of the group to a halt or not. He concludes that decapitation as a strategy in counter-terrorism is counter-productive when it is used against large, and deep-rooted religious terrorist groups.

In opposition to the study conducted by Jordan, Price argues that eliminating the leaders of terrorist groups is critical to the sustainability of the group (2012). He compared the mortality of decapitated terrorist groups with non-decapitated terrorist groups and concluded that the former had a higher mortality rate than the latter. He further maintained that not only was any form of leadership crises critical to a terrorist group’s survival but also eliminating leaders in the early life of the group was more effective.

2.4 The Moral Debate

Chamayou highlighted on the moral complexities of TK underscoring the fact that drones have been given the same right to kill as soldiers or combatants on a battlefield (2015), which others believe is a high level of risk vesting drones with so much lethal power (Sharkey , 2010). In a situation where drones cannot be classified as morally responsible for their actions, and even if such classification was possible, it would be an exercise futility to hold a machine accountable.

Alternatively, it will also be unfair to hold the drone programmer accountable since there is no direct moral obligation for the functioning or malfunctioning of the drone (Chamayou, 2015).

(21)

12 | P a g e

These arguments put forward show how scholars are concerned not only about the way the technology is being deployed currently, but also the context of their use since these machines are being given some degree of autonomy: “the capability of a machine (usually a robot) for an unsupervised operation, hence the smaller the need for human supervision and intervention, the greater the autonomy” (Allinson , 2015, p. 3)

Furthermore, in answering the question of whether killing by remote control is wrong in itself or whether the method presents complex moral issues, Bradley Strawser (2013), Ronal Arkin (2009) and Armin Krishnan (2009) have argued in defense of drones with justifications for the method of killing using the just war theory, realism and pacifism. Kaag and Kreps however disagree with these justifications stressing that though the assumption is that less casualties will be incurred by employing drones, this should not necessarily mean that we should deploy them (2014).

2.5 The Debate on the Impact and Accountability of Targeted Killing

A continuous debate on the legitimacy of TKs is the debate on the accountability of the state on its TK missions. This domain has received enormous critique (Alston, 2011; Singer, 2012) from academics. In comparison, some academics have countered the critiques suggesting that the US for instance has a rigorous system in place that ensures the domestic accountability of the U.S targeted-killing missions (McNeal, 2014). Further, other studies have also made recommendations in relation to how the levels of accountability can be improved at the international and domestic levels (Guiora, 2013; Murphy & Radson, 2009).

Another area of focus is into the effects of TKs on contemporary societies. One group of academics focused on the broader impact of killing state leaders and how this exercise affects domestic politics (Jones & Olken, 2009; Iqbal & Zorn, 2008). In other arguments, the subject is analyzed from the perspective of modern conflicts and discusses the regional and local effects of TK (Boyle, 2013; Fair, Kaltenthaler, & Miller , 2016).

Some literature have criticized the US and Israel for conducting secret missions (Bergman , 2018:

Jaffer , 2016) whereas others have also focused on the impact of the revolution of TK on the global international order and therefore recommend some changes to the global international order (Senn

& Troy, 2017). Unlike the US that has a clear TK programme, some scholars maintain that the UK is still debating the use of unmanned systems for TK missions even though the country has drone deployments in syria in the fight against Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) (Turns , 2017).

This indeed is agreed by scholars as a contradictory position. However, the UK argues that its

(22)

13 | P a g e

mission are strictly guided by its policy to defend their nation and its citizens against national security threats (HC 747/HL 49, 2016).

2.6 The Constructivist Argument

Few scholars like Wilcox highlight how algorithms are used to determine characteristics associated with terrorist that makes them targetable. He thinks that algorithms are language interpreted based on social norms (2017). Allinson conducts similar studies in his work “Drone and Necro-Politics”.

His arguments point to how drone operators operate within a pre-determined mental machinery which shapes the target into a killable object when in contact (2015). This pre-defined scope segregates places and groups of people into who matters, and who does not, who is disposable and who is not (Mbembe, 2003).

In her book titled “Legitimate Targets? Social Construction, International Law and US Bombing”

Dill (2014) shares similar thoughts with Grayson with a thought-provoking account of whether International law (IL) is capable of regulating state behaviour in the absence of a central authority.

Using an innovative method, she explores the constructivist theory associated with IL to unravel why states create IL and abide by it. Her major argument questions the term legitimate target and analyzes how IL defines it. IL considers legitimate targets as military objectives and calls for the application of the principles of distinction and proportionality as conditions for legitimacy.

Dill suggests that IL describes the conditions required for a target to be deemed as legitimate for engagement. However, the law fails to disallow or prevent the individual from making subjective judgements about what a legitimate target is. It also does not address the consequences of an attack since the individual is only required to observe a certain criterion and a state of mind or intent which indeed is not verifiable (ibid). Basically, the analysis has sought to establish that arriving at what is deemed as a legitimate target according to IL hinges strongly on the perception of the attacker. The construction of the target for destruction as Dill has addressed is what forms the crux of this study.

Still focusing on the issue of legitimate targets and in this context how the enemy is framed, Pope (2015) presents a scholarly insight into the discourse on high-value targets in the UK. The theme of high-value target was identified to precede arguments in favour of the surgical precision of drone strikes in UK discourse. Analyzing the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki in Yemen on 30 September 2011, Pope indicates that the event received wide publications across media outlets.

(23)

14 | P a g e

Notable among all the articles was the emphasis on the threat that Anwar Al-Awlaki posed to the UK and the fact that the legal implications of the UK Killing its own citizen was relegated to the background. Anwar Al-Awlaki was described as an ideologue who had radicalizing potentials (ibid). This suggested that eliminating Anwar Al-Awlaki was a means to prevent future radicalization of others. Other news headlines read “Evil Unplugged” and “Fanatic Killed”.

Baitallah Mehsud, one of the suspected Taliban leaders was also described as a “border-warrior with a brutal career who had become a high priest of suicide bombers” (p. 147). Additionally, in

‘A Critical Evaluation of Drone Strikes in Pakistan’, Aslam also conducted studies into how debates regarding casualties were politically acceptable to frame threats and securitize the actions of states (Aslam, 2011).

With reference to securitization, a study conducted by Romaniuk using the Copenhagen School’s theory of securitization focused on US targeted killings using armed drones. According to the interpretation of the Copenhagen School, the global war on terrorism is a means of securitizing terrorism such that a situation is classified as threatening enough to require the application of exceptional force. The securitization process consequently validates targeted killing by means of armed drones as a counterterrorism measure for the US global war on terror (2015). Undeniably, except for the work done by these scholars, debates on drones and TKs featuring constructivist thinking are generally not common (Pope , 2015).

Disputably, even though all these scholarly works have been conducted in this domain, there is little information about how the ‘enemy’ is constructed in practical terms. Especially, the political constructions that make the ‘enemy’ a killable object or “their lives losable” (Gregory , 2017, p.

212). Using the US, Israel and UK as the focus of this research, this study takes the debate further by finding out how the ‘enemy’ is framed by western democracies for the acceptable logic of killing the ‘enemy’. Whiles previous studies provided limited knowledge into how targets are framed by states to justify their elimination, this thesis will present an advanced scholarly argument for the conceptualization of this subject as well to activate a sustained academic debate on the topic.

(24)

15 | P a g e

3.0 Chapter Three: Methodology and Research Design

This chapter highlights the different approaches that were employed to undertake this study to answer the research question. The research question to be answered in this study is: In the context of the International fight against terrorism, how do western democracies frame the enemy as targetable and killable? The following themes are addressed in the chapter: I start by explaining the approaches used in the study. Next, I concentrate on the research design which is a case study.

Thirdly, I illuminate on the criteria used in selecting the respondents for the research. I again highlight on the data collection methods applied to the study and finally I explore the limitations of the study.

3.1 Critical Discourse Analysis 3.1.1 Qualitative Research

The aim of this thesis as indicated earlier is to find out how western democracies (US, Israel and UK) frame the ‘enemy’ as targetable and killable in the context of the international fight against terrorism. While looking for an appropriate approach to carry out this study, the Critical Discourse Analysis (henceforth called CDA) method of qualitative research approach was found to be well- suited to achieve the aim of this study.

According to Bryman (2012) the strength of qualitative research design lies in its stress on the use of words rather than numbers in the collection and analyzing of data. Its distinct principles and approach has earned it a reputation of being a reliable method in social research. First, concepts and theory of qualitative research are driven by the synergy or communication between individuals and not phenomena. Secondly, knowledge built from this approach is based on the interpretivist paradigm in which analyzing and interpreting the social world using its participants becomes a tool to make meaning to understand the social world. More importantly is the ability to generate theory out of research due to the link between the two (Bryman , 2012).

Further justifications for opting for this method of study is the inherent ability to triangulate and explore. In the words of Bryman, triangulation enables the researcher to confer results of a study with other existing research. This system of cross-checking results is meant to validate the findings of a study in a context where the research has made use of different sources in a single study (2016).

(25)

16 | P a g e

3.1.2 Critical Discourse Analysis as a Method

CDA is a form of qualitative Discourse Analysis. It is a research method that provokes scholars to advance from viewing language as metaphysical to understanding them as having meaning that are relative to a particular social, political and historical context (McGregor, 2010). This suggests that the method investigates real cases of social interaction by taking a linguistic format (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000).

The beliefs, ideas and positions of people can be illustrated using language by speech or texts which if analyzed communicate a certain meaning within the context. This type of analysis facilitates the explanation of events, conditions and issues (Mogashoa, 2014). Mogashoa further emphasize that “given the power of the written and spoken word, critical discourse analysis is necessary for describing, interpreting, analyzing and critiquing social life reflected in text” (p.

104).

This suggests that how we perceive the world and our idea of reality is communicated through language which in the end produces a kind of discourse (Van Dijk, 2005). The key element in discourse is that it denies ‘objective truth’ since reality is constructed and appreciated through categorization. Our understanding of the world does not mirror what exist but rather an outcome of our means of categorizing the world and evaluating several events in different ways. Therefore, different realities exist subjectively and by re-communicating them we create different discourses and contrasting ways of viewing the world (ibid). This constructivist ontology of understanding the social world connects with my research question which consequently creates a good foundation for it to be answered adequately.

Since reality is constructed through discourse, it also possesses an inherent power to determine which norms and values are acceptable and normal. Thus, there is competition between the different perspectives and discourses about reality regarding the most influential paradigm over people’s thoughts. These competing paradigms contribute to the formation and replication of uneven power relations between ideas and perceptions of reality (Van Dijk, 2005). In trying to be the dominant discourse that an audience may accept, the paradigm which eventually becomes dominant can determine the knowledge and perception that an audience should have (Diamond &

Cobb, 1999)

According to Fairclough’s, speakers and their audience arrive at an understanding through varying means which includes persuasion (2001). Diamond and Cobb consider persuasion as a means of

(26)

17 | P a g e

convincing other people to alter their views on a subject (1999). In that vein, they will disregard presently held beliefs in favor of the new ideas or believes the persuader presents (Diamond &

Cobb, 1999). Finally, Batstone maintains that critical discourse analysts set out to unravel how the construction of texts conceal certain perspectives in a subtle manner (1995). In this context, the researcher will analyze how the political elite have constructed the image of their adversary in a manner that the intended audience are able to accept the logic of TK.

A significant point to establish is the reason for opting for this method of study. This is largely because of its affiliation to language and also as summarized by Wodak and Meyer (2014):

“In contrast to other approaches to text and discourse analysis (for example, content analysis, grounded theory, conversation analysis; see Titscher et al., 2000) CDA strongly relies on linguistic categories. This does not mean that topics and contents play no role at all, but that the core operationalization depends on linguistic concepts such as actors, mode, time, tense, argumentation, and so on.” (p. 28)

3.2 Research Design

This study adopted the Case study research design. This approach allows the researcher to interrogate a contemporary phenomenon especially within the context of the case. George and Bennett (2005) cited in Levy (2008) deﬁne a case as “an instance of a class of events”, and a case study as “the detailed examination of an aspect of a historical episode to develop or test historical explanations that may be generalizable to other events” (p. 2). Based on this definition, scholars using the case study approach are entreated to embrace the approach of a historian, but should change the descriptive propositions of specific results into analytical expositions based on variables (George 1979, cited in Levy, 2008).

The typology of case study design applied to this research is the ‘Illustrative Case study’ approach.

This type of case study is usually concise and does not extensively explain a case or test a standpoint of a theory absolutely. On the other hand, the approach aims to offer the reader an impression or sense of a theoretical debate by making available an empirical representation of its application, or to exhibit the empirical significance of a theoretical standpoint by finding at least a single case that is of relevance (Eckstein, 1975 cited in Levy, 2008).

A major reason for adopting a case study approach is to be able to understand a real-world situation whereby the ability of the researcher to make sense of cases will involve varying contexts in

(27)

18 | P a g e

relation to the specific case (Yin, 2013). Another significant advantage I realized from using this design was the ability to use different sources for the study in order to triangulate (Bryman , 2012).

For this reason, this study chose western democratic states represented by US, Israel and UK.

For clarity, I want to emphasize that the US, Israel and UK are not the only western democratic states, and neither are they the only western democratic states who are in possession of the drone technology. France has been in possession of Harfang drones since 2008 and acquired Reaper drones in 2013 in which two of them were subsequently deployed in the Sahel in 2014. Similarly, Italy and Germany also are in possession of the Predator drone and the Israeli-made Heron1 drones respectively (Cole , 2016). These three countries (US, Israel and UK) were therefore chosen as case studies for illustrative purposes in the quest to understand how state actors frame their adversaries as killable targets in the context of the global war on terrorism.

The criterion of case selection was principally based on the multiple case study approach. This approach involves the selection of two or more cases for a single study. It is scientifically appropriate especially when the chosen cases are not absolute representations of the larger population (Harrison & Calan, 2013). Whiles a generalization is not the aim of my work, the use of multiple cases enhances the validity of the research findings (Yin, 2013). The three cases were also chosen with the issue of context in mind as applicable to case study design. Moreover, since purposive sampling is the driving sampling method in the conduct of a case study, this informed the criteria for selecting the cases-the underlying features of the cases and their uniqueness (Harrison & Calan, 2013). On this basis, I argue that my selection of the three countries was also largely purposive.

3.3 Data Collection and Method

The study made use of multiple data sources featuring primary and secondary data. I chose multiple sources of data for the study to ensure triangulation and to build converging lines of enquiry in this study (Bryman , 2016). In the words of Yin, researching for consistency of data across multiple sources of enquiry is like verification (2013). The primary data sources included speeches by politicians and interviews. Selected speeches were available in both video and text formats online.

Speech transcripts were compared with video versions for accuracy. Online sources included Dronewars UK, University of California Santa Barbara’s American Presidency Project and the website of the International Institute of Counter-terrorism in Israel. Other sources were the

(28)

19 | P a g e

European Forum on Armed Drones (EFAD), the New American Foundation, Long War journal and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

The speeches cannot be considered as true or false in the real sense per se. The issue of whether they are justified or not was also not of interest to me since that is another master thesis. These speeches were chosen because they address my research question adequately in terms of context.

I also considered other secondary sources of data such as scholarly articles, books, newspapers, government websites, government documents, legal documents, documentaries and court rulings that touch on the area of reseasrch.

Semi-structured interviews were used in the conduct of this study. Semi-structured interviews include questions that deal with a certain range of issues or topics and may not strictly follow a laid down sequence (Bryman , 2012). Semi-structured interviews can be likened to a conversation (Burgess, 1984) where questions are more flexible and open ended to allow interviewees to speak freely to give their own account of an issue. The researcher is therefore able to probe further on important points raised by the interviewees (Berg & Lune, 2012).

The Interviews were conducted on skype call with analysts for an expert view on the subject. The views of the experts were essential in providing a broader understanding of the context that the discourse of the area of study transpires. Understanding issues in appropriate context is important in the conduct of CDA (Yin, 2013). According to Byman, telephone interviews can be used in qualitative research when respondents are scattered and cannot be easily reached (Bryman , 2016).

In total, I conducted two (2) Skype-call interviews and one (1) face-to-face interview. Each lasted approximately twenty (20) minutes. Through the assistance of my supervisor, respondents were contacted via email at least one week before the time for the interview. At the end of every interview, the researcher asked further questions for clarification on some of the issues. The interviews were recorded with the consent of the interviewees and guided by an interview guide.

However, respondents had the opportunity to speak freely on the issues. Recorded interviews were later transcribed and analyzed based on the research questions under separate headings (Bryman , 2012).

Interviews on telephone or the web have been judged as effective in terms of cost and are largely used in qualitative studies (ibid). Yet, there are downsides to the use of telephone interview. The researcher is unable to observe non-verbal cues and other body language which are important to

(29)

20 | P a g e

the research. That notwithstanding, telephone interviews are known to be more appropriate if respondents cannot be reached easily or are located over vast distances. On the other hand, the face-face interview with my third respondent facilitated the observation of non-verbal cues which are important for the conduct of interviews (ibid).

3.4 Sampling and Sample size

Against this background, the study adopted the purposive sampling design since it is relevant to the qualitative data requirements that characterizes the social sciences (Berg & Lune, 2012). This approach is most beneficial to research that has limited resources and therefore requires the selection of cases that are rich in information for the effective utilization of resources. It is also inexpensive, offers easy access to respondents and fast to apply in qualitative research (ibid). It was also the most applicable to the research because I was looking out for data that addressed this study in the context of armed drones and targeted killings.

A sample size of twenty-one (21) political speeches were used in the conduct of this study. For qualitative research Charmaz (2006) suggests that a sample of twenty-five (25) is sufficient for small research projects. This is further reiterated by Richie, Jane & Lewis (2003) who maintained that qualitative samples are usually less than fifty (50). Finally, Green & Thorogood (2009) also indicate that for most qualitative research, researchers derive little new information after having explored a sample size of twenty (20). This therefore justifies choice of sample for a qualitative study of this nature.

3.5 Reliability and Validity

Reliability and Validity are concepts in research methodology that seek to evaluate the quality of a study in line with the principles of scientific research. In the words of Kerlinger, reliability can be likened to words like accuracy, predictability, consistency and stability (Kerlinger , 1973).

Even though the findings of CDA are produced from a reflexive and contextualized approach, this does not exclude the study from evaluation. And despite the diverse perspectives of how to measure the validity of qualitative research, the common rules for assessing the validity of qualitative research are context, coherence, rigour, relevance and usefulness (Yadley, 2011). In terms of context, I situate my research in the appropriate context by connecting the study to relevant scholarly literature on drones and targeted killings. Coherence relates to the effective use

(30)

21 | P a g e

of language to advance a scholarly thought rather than resorting to personal feelings whiles rigour concerns the provision of a detailed account of the subject under study (Taylor , 2001). Based on my approach to this study, I am of the view that I meet the criteria of coherence and rigour since my analysis was conducted through a well-defined scientific methodology to arrive at logical conclusions. In the matter of relevance, my study is related to an empirical issue of targeted killings in the context of international counter-terrorism. Finally, ‘usefulness’ according to Taylor can be judged from its contribution the body of academic enquiry or application outside scholarship (2001). I am certain that my research meets this criterion since the study presents an advanced scholarly argument for the understanding of this topic as well activates a sustained academic debate on the topic. Although I have been conscious of the criteria outlined during the conduct of this study, the extent to which I was successful in the application of these scientific principles will be judged by the reader of the research.

3.6 Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations can be deemed as one of the salient aspects of qualitative research. Ethical principles in social research involves certain key elements grouped into four main areas by Diener and Crandall (1978): the potential of research to harm participants; whether informed consent is lacking; whether privacy of participants is invaded; and whether there is an element of deception.

Issues bothering on the above specifically were strictly adhered to during the study. To ensure informed consent, the researcher sought the explicit consent of respondents via email before the commencement of the interviews. Informed consent allow respondents to be fully aware of the nature of the study and the implications of their involvement from the beginning (Bryman , 2016).

3.7 Limitations

The role of the researcher is significant in every research design. In fact, when using qualitative methods, it is a likelihood that the researcher’s background, identity and bias will impact the findings or how the results will be interpreted. It is therefore important that such biases or preconceptions are eliminated to preserve the study’s integrity (Bryman, 2012). However, Bryman is emphatic that it is practically not feasible to curtail entirely the biases of the researcher. Against this background, researchers are advised to caution readers about their assumptions (ibid). Indeed, the materials used for the analysis of this study were subject to the researcher’s bias- a phenomenon identified in literature as a weakness in qualitative research design. This weakness therefore made

(31)

22 | P a g e

it impossible to generalize results to the larger population (Bryman , Social Research Methods, 2016).

Furthermore, another limitation of this study had to do with the challenge with the extent to which the study could go in interpreting the text being analyzed to bring out a contextualized interpretation. That notwithstanding, discourse analysis research method allows the analyst to introduce and impose meanings on texts being analyzed (Wodak & Meyer, 2001). Parker and Burman (2004) have summarized the argument stressing that “analysts are not only readers but also producers of discourse” (p. 150).

Thirdly, the principal tool of data collection, analysis and interpretation in a qualitative study is the researcher (Parker & Burman, 1993). Therefore, although I acknowledge that language is a social construct, it is also imperative to recognize that I was not insulated from the process and products of these social constructions. Therefore, the findings, conclusions and interpretations of this study will be restricted to that of the researcher. However, the advantages and benefits of critical discourse analysis depends on the aptitude of the researcher to produce explanations and interpretations from a rigorous and reflexive methods of inquiry (ibid). These have effectively been applied in this study.

Also, CDA research has been criticized as being biased socially and politically. On the contrary, Wodak and Meyer (2001) maintain that “critical discourse analysis research combines what perhaps somewhat pompously used to be called ‘solidarity with the oppressed’ with an attitude of opposition and dissent against those who abuse text and talk to establish, confirm or legitimize their abuse of power. Unlike much other scholarship, CDA does not deny but explicitly defines and defends its own socio-political position, that is CDA is biased – and proud of it.” (p. 96).

Moreover, there was a challenge with fixing the time for the skype interview for my first respondent. The time-zone difference was miscalculated initially since the respondent was in another country. This compelled me to start my first interview an hour earlier than we agreed.

Also, network problems within the jurisdiction of my respondent dropped the skype call twice.

But nevertheless, these challenges did not affect the findings of this study.